Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY, S. K. CHAWLA
VIVEK JAIN - Appellant
Versus
PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD, MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 1367 Of 1992
Decided On : 02/08/1994
PMT EXAMINATION - GENERAL ENGLISH - QUALIFYING MARKS - REQUIREMENT OF 25% MARKS - REASONABLE AND ARBITRARY - PRESCRIPTION OF MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS IN INDIVIDUAL SCIENCE SUBJECTS - UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY - CANCELLATION OF DEFECTIVE QUESTIONS - PROPORTIONATE MARKS TO BE AWARDED - RELIEF CONFINED TO PETITIONERS IN THE WRITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are students, appeared in the PMT Examination of the year 1992, but could not secure even qualifying marks in the subject of 'general English'. The qualifying marks in this paper were 75 out of 300, but the petitioners secured 69 marks (Vivek Jain), 68 marks (Manish Bansal), 72 marks (Rakesh Sharma), 73 marks (Devkinandan Sharma), 74 marks (Sangeeta Gupta), 71 marks (Anil Kumar Sharma), 72 marks (Manju Jain), 28 marks (Nitu Sonkar) and 55 marks (Ruchi Gupta ). For that reason the names of the petitioners did not figure in the merit list, which disabled them from getting admission in MBBS.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the prescription of 'general English' as one of the subjects for the entrance examination and the requirement of obtaining at least 25 per cent marks in that subject to qualify for admission, was not unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court also held that the requirement of 25 per cent as qualifying marks in the subject of 'general English' was not arbitrary. The Court further held that the rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in 'general English' as 25 per cent without prescription of any minimum qualifying marks in individual science subjects and the further rule that the marks obtained in General English would not be added in the aggregate marks, was unjust and arbitrary.
Issues: 1. Whether the prescription of 'general English' as one of the subjects for the entrance examination and the requirement of obtaining at least 25 per cent marks in that subject to qualify for admission, was unreasonable and arbitrary? 2. Whether the requirement of 25 per cent as qualifying marks in the subject of 'general English' was arbitrary? 3. Whether the rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in 'general English' as 25 per cent without prescription of any minimum qualifying marks in individual science subjects and the further rule that the marks obtained in General English would not be added in the aggregate marks, was unjust and arbitrary?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prescription of 'general English' as one of the subjects for the entrance examination and the requirement of obtaining at least 25 per cent marks in that subject to qualify for admission, was not unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court also held that the requirement of 25 per cent as qualifying marks in the subject of 'general English' was not arbitrary. 2. The Court further held that the rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in 'general English' as 25 per cent without prescription of any minimum qualifying marks in individual science subjects and the further rule that the marks obtained in General English would not be added in the aggregate marks, was unjust and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed in part. The Court directed that in the paper of General English' of PMT 1992 with respect to questions 89a, 92a, 94a and 100a (and corresponding questions in other Sets), the petitioners shall be given proportionate marks in relation to marks secured by them in that paper. They shall further be given 1 mark each for these questions, if negative marking was done and deduction was made. If on revaluation so done, the petitioners reach or cross the qualifying limit of 75 marks out of 300 in the 'general English' paper, they or such or them as reach or cross the qualifying limit shall be given admission as per their new entitlement.
Parties and Proceedings
- Petitioners are students who appeared in PMT 1992 examination, secured high aggregate marks in science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology) exceeding cut-off for admission (e.g., Vivek Jain: 812 marks, others 824-896 for general, 553 for SC), but failed to secure 25% qualifying marks (75/300) in General English, excluding them from merit list for MBBS admission. [27000058180001][27000058180002]
- Petitions under Art. 226 challenge: (1) inclusion of General English and 25% qualifying requirement as unreasonable/arbitrary; (2) disparity in prescribing min. qualifying only for English (not individual science subjects) and excluding English marks from aggregate; (3) specific defective questions in English paper warranting revaluation. Order governs multiple connected petitions (M.P. Nos. 1395/92 etc.). (!) [27000058180001][27000058180002][27000058180003]
Upholding General English Requirement
- Prescription of General English as subject in PMT and 25% min. qualifying marks (75/300) not unreasonable/arbitrary/discriminatory, as medical courses taught in English requiring working knowledge; differs from All India PMT (English not included, but candidates must have passed HSC with English). [27000058180003]
- No min. qualifying prescribed for individual science subjects immaterial due to high competition; English min. ensures basic proficiency without overemphasizing language; excluding English from aggregate prevents admission based on language mastery over science knowledge. [27000058180004]
Principles on Objective Tests and Defective Questions
- Objective tests require single correct answer among alternatives; questions admitting 2+ equally correct answers defective, warranting cancellation and proportionate marks (pro-rated based on candidate's paper performance, excluding question as if not asked; +1 mark if negative marking applied). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Key answer preferred if near-correct or both key/student answers near-correct; full marks only if key wrong and student correct; no marks if both wrong; printing errors not defective if obvious/irrelevant to choice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Rulings on Specific Questions (Set 'A' References; Analogous in Other Sets)
- Q20a (grammatically correct sentence: "It was impossible for us to follow her in speech"): Correctly cancelled by Board (no correct alternatives; identical a/b, none match proper "follow her speech"); proportionate marks already awarded. (!) (!)
- Q92a ("We will reach... before the train ___": leaves/has left): Defective (both c/d correct per grammar rules on time clauses post-'before' allowing Simple Present/Present Perfect); cancel, award proportionate marks +1 if negative. (!) (!)
- Q94a ("Columbus ___ America": discovered/had discovered): Defective (both b/a correct for past discovery in Simple Past/Past Perfect); cancel, award proportionate marks +1 if negative. (!)
- Q100a ("He ___ in this office for two years": has been working/had been working/has worked/is working): Defective (all a/b/c/d correct); cancel, award proportionate marks +1 if negative. (!)
- Q89a (correct spelling: anesthetic variants): Defective, already cancelled; proportionate marks. (!) (!)
- Other challenged questions (Q12a, Q51a, Q49a, Q79a) not defective; key answers correct (e.g., "set aside"; "irreparable loss"; "offer you"; "irreligious"). (!) (!) (!) (!)
Relief Granted
- Petitions allowed in part: Revalue English paper for petitioners only, awarding proportionate marks for Q89a/92a/94a/100a (+1 each if negative marking); if any reach/cross 75/300, admit per new merit (create extra seats if needed). Board to revalue within 2 weeks; State to admit within further 2 weeks. Relief confined to petitioners (no disturbance to existing admissions). No costs. (!) (!) (!)
( 1 ) THE order in this petition shall also govern disposal of M. P. Nos. 1395/92, 1396/92, 1423/92, 1466/92, 1419/92, 1572/93 and 133/93.
( 2 ) ALL the petitioners, who are students, appear to be bright students, who secured more than cut-off marks in PMT Examination of the year 1992, but for them English-despised by many as an imposed foreign language-proved by many as an imposed foreign language-proved to be their bane. To begin with, there is a Professional Examination Board in M. P. , which conducts every year entrance tests known as PMT and PET Examinations, for admissions to Medical and Engineering Colleges in M. P. We are concerned here with PMT Examination which was held in the month of June, 1992. All the petitioners in the present bunch of petitions appeared in that examination, along with a large number, which appears every year. A merit list was prepared by the Board after the examination, as is done every time, on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in Science subjects, viz. Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology (PCBZ ). The marks obtained by the candidates in 'general English' were not included in the aggregate. It was however necessary that a candidate should have secured at least 25 per cent marks in 'general English' to qualify for admission (Rule 1. 15. 1 and Rule 3. 5. 2. of the Rules for Entrance Test framed by the State Government for PMT 1992 ). Accordingly, the names of those candidates who did notobtain 25 per cent marks in the subject of 'general English', i. e. 75 marks out of 300, were excluded from the merit list. The last candidate under 'general category' who was given admission, had secured aggregate marks of 800 in the merit list and that of the Scheduled Caste category, 420 marks. Coming to the case of the petitioner, they had all obtained more than the above aggregate marks. Thus petitioners Vivek Jain (in the present petition) secured 812 aggregate marks, Manish Bansal (in M. P. 1395/92)838 marks, Rakesh Sharma (in M. P. 1396/92) 824 marks, Devkinandan Sharma (in M. P. 1423/92) 896 marks, Sangeeta Gupta and Anil Kumar Sharma (in M. P. 1466/92) 882 and 825 marks respectively, Nanju Jain (in M. P. 1419/92) 882 marks, Nitu Sonkar (in M. P. 1572/92) a Scheduled Caste candidate, 553 marks, and Ruchi Gupta (in M. P. 133/93) 823 marks. They could not however secure even qualifying marks in the subject of 'general English'. The qualifying marks in this paper, as already pointed out, were 75 out of 300, but the petitioners secured 69 marks (Vivek Jain), 68 marks (Manish Bansal), 72 marks (Rakesh Sharma), 73 marks (Devkinandan Sharma), 74 marks (Sangeeta Gupta), 71 marks (Anil Kumar Sharma), 72 marks (Manju Jain), 28 marks (Nitu Sonkar) and 55 marks (Ruchi Gupta ). For that reason the names of the petitioners did not figure in the merit list, which disabled them from getting admission in MBBS.
( 3 ) THESE petitions are divisible into three categories. In the first category, the prescription of 'general English' as one of the subjects for the entrance examination and the requirement of obtaining at least 25 per cent marks in that subject to qualify for admission, was challenged on the ground that it was unreasonable and arbitrary. In this category fall M. P. Nos. 1572/92 and 133/93. In the second category, the rule prescribing minimum qualifying marks in 'general English' as 25 per cent without prescription of any minimum qualifying marks in individual science subjects and the further rule that the marks obtained in General English would not be added in the aggregate marks, was assailed as unjust and arbitrary. In this category falls M. P. 133/93. In the third category of cases, challenge was made to certain questions of the 'general English' paper, to contend that more marks should now be given by the Court to the petitioners for their answers to those questions, which would enable them to reach the qualifying level. In this category fall the rest of the petitions
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
